JPhurst wrote:
Cert denied, thank G-d.

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

VanVorster wrote:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2 ... /pro-gun-myths-fact-check

A reasonable and totally unbiased article. Any other propaganda you'd like to share with us? Should I be posting retorts from right wing talk shows?

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

VanVorster wrote:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2 ... /pro-gun-myths-fact-check

A reasonable and totally unbiased article. Any other propaganda you'd like to share with us? Should I be posting retorts from right wing talk shows?

VanVorster wrote:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2 ... /pro-gun-myths-fact-check

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
I'm not sure if the anti-CC folks have more impressive arguments than have been used on this thread. But from what I can tell they have three types of arguments:

1. Fear-mongering hyperbole - We don't want New Jersey to turn into the "Wild West!" People will be shooting at each other in the streets over petty disagreements!

This is demonstrably false as shown by the numerous studies finding that enacting CC laws either reduces violent crime or has no discernible effect.

For an example, see this link: "Lott listed 18 studies that found [CC] laws reduced violent crime, ten that said it has no discernible effect and one that found it increased violent crime."

"The debate has been between those who say that it reduces crime and those who say it has no effect," he noted. ?Very few debates are divided that way.?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/f ... 54-580638ede391_blog.html

This is not a valid set of statistics. The issue is not whether ?violent crime? rises or falls. The issue is over gun related incidents in public.

Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
2. Anecdotal evidence - Look at this legal gun owner in Florida or Alabama who improperly shot someone! This never would have happened without CC! Clearly the risk of harm to all of society is too great because of these isolated incidents, we cannot allow CC.

Again, while the anecdotes themselves are correct, the intended inference (see #1) is not. The studies are largely in agreement that allowing CC does not allow violent crime to rise.

As mentioned by my response to number 1, the guy that accidentally shoots a passenger in his pickup (a link I provided earlier) isn?t classified as a ?violent crime?. The weapon was discharged accidentally.

Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
3. Name calling/I feel safe without a gun so that means no one should have the option! - These are essentially the same argument, the first is just an immature way of expressing it. The person thinks it is "unnecessary" for themselves to carry a gun so this means no one else in the state should be able to have the option.

This is essentially an extreme nanny state type argument. We know that allowing CC will not cause the violent crime rate to be raised. Maybe some people subconsciously disregard this or are unaware and think along the lines of guns = danger so more guns on the street = more danger. But this has been proven to be false.

I think part of this argument is simply people wanting to impose their personal beliefs and preferences onto everyone else. But legislation should not work that way, especially when a Constitutional freedom is involved.

Also, it is arrogant and closed-minded to assume your set of experiences can represent all possible scenarios one can face, and because you personally never feel in any danger when outside that means no one has this right. For example, the man who is appealing his court case to the Supreme Court (why this thread was created) is a business owner who owns and services ATMs. He told the Star Ledger he sometimes carries large amounts of cash and he wants to carry a gun during his work for protection. I think this person should be able to have the option to protect himself and it is simply ridiculous that the government will not allow it (but would if he were a retired cop).

For these reasons, I think the anti CC folks are on the wrong side of history and this will be proven in the near to intermediate future.

I don?t disagree with the confusion over why an ex-police officer can carry a gun while a guy that handles money on a daily basis cannot.

I also never argued that it should be illegal because only cowards would be running out to get conceal-carry permits. I merely pointed out that it is those that will be doing such. I make no pretense that this will dissuade anyone. I find the psychology behind it interesting.

No argument has ever been ?I?m safe you should be too!? I?ve asked the pointed question about how people have been unable to live this long with a gun. How is it possible that all of these people that absolutely need a CCW have been able to live, breathe and walk through the streets of where they live without it?

As noted in a video I linked earlier? a gun as an offensive weapon. Its purpose is to strike and render dead the target. If the user is hindered prior to its use, the weapon is useless. If a person is assaulted and struck on the street, say the knockout game, a gun will provide no defense. The attack occurred and the perpetrators are gone well before a gun could be pulled out. If someone walks up and sticks a gun in your face or the face of a loved one, will pulling out a gun immediately calm the situation or increase the stress levels?

Ultimately, it is a show of force. It is the psychological backbone provided to the weak.

Quote:

Monroe wrote:
It's interesting to me that people who use the argument of being on the wrong side of history re:gay marriage, and use the argument of 'don't want gay marriage? don't marry someone gay' seem to feel exactly 180 degrees when it comes to concealed carry using the same points.

It is always great to read a complete hatchet job of a point getting made?

JCMan8 wrote:
I'm not sure if the anti-CC folks have more impressive arguments than have been used on this thread. But from what I can tell they have three types of arguments:

1. Fear-mongering hyperbole - We don't want New Jersey to turn into the "Wild West!" People will be shooting at each other in the streets over petty disagreements!

This is demonstrably false as shown by the numerous studies finding that enacting CC laws either reduces violent crime or has no discernible effect.

For an example, see this link: "Lott listed 18 studies that found [CC] laws reduced violent crime, ten that said it has no discernible effect and one that found it increased violent crime."

"The debate has been between those who say that it reduces crime and those who say it has no effect," he noted. ?Very few debates are divided that way.?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/f ... 54-580638ede391_blog.html

JCMan8 wrote:
2. Anecdotal evidence - Look at this legal gun owner in Florida or Alabama who improperly shot someone! This never would have happened without CC! Clearly the risk of harm to all of society is too great because of these isolated incidents, we cannot allow CC.

Again, while the anecdotes themselves are correct, the intended inference (see #1) is not. The studies are largely in agreement that allowing CC does not allow violent crime to rise.

JCMan8 wrote:
3. Name calling/I feel safe without a gun so that means no one should have the option! - These are essentially the same argument, the first is just an immature way of expressing it. The person thinks it is "unnecessary" for themselves to carry a gun so this means no one else in the state should be able to have the option.

This is essentially an extreme nanny state type argument. We know that allowing CC will not cause the violent crime rate to be raised. Maybe some people subconsciously disregard this or are unaware and think along the lines of guns = danger so more guns on the street = more danger. But this has been proven to be false.

I think part of this argument is simply people wanting to impose their personal beliefs and preferences onto everyone else. But legislation should not work that way, especially when a Constitutional freedom is involved.

Also, it is arrogant and closed-minded to assume your set of experiences can represent all possible scenarios one can face, and because you personally never feel in any danger when outside that means no one has this right. For example, the man who is appealing his court case to the Supreme Court (why this thread was created) is a business owner who owns and services ATMs. He told the Star Ledger he sometimes carries large amounts of cash and he wants to carry a gun during his work for protection. I think this person should be able to have the option to protect himself and it is simply ridiculous that the government will not allow it (but would if he were a retired cop).

For these reasons, I think the anti CC folks are on the wrong side of history and this will be proven in the near to intermediate future.

Monroe wrote:
It's interesting to me that people who use the argument of being on the wrong side of history re:gay marriage, and use the argument of 'don't want gay marriage? don't marry someone gay' seem to feel exactly 180 degrees when it comes to concealed carry using the same points.

JCMan8 wrote:

I'm not sure if the anti-CC folks have more impressive arguments than have been used on this thread. But from what I can tell they have three types of arguments:

1. Fear-mongering hyperbole - We don't want New Jersey to turn into the "Wild West!" People will be shooting at each other in the streets over petty disagreements!

This is demonstrably false as shown by the numerous studies finding that enacting CC laws either reduces violent crime or has no discernible effect.

For an example, see this link: "Lott listed 18 studies that found [CC] laws reduced violent crime, ten that said it has no discernible effect and one that found it increased violent crime."

"The debate has been between those who say that it reduces crime and those who say it has no effect," he noted. ?Very few debates are divided that way.?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/f ... 54-580638ede391_blog.html

2. Anecdotal evidence - Look at this legal gun owner in Florida or Alabama who improperly shot someone! This never would have happened without CC! Clearly the risk of harm to all of society is too great because of these isolated incidents, we cannot allow CC.

Again, while the anecdotes themselves are correct, the intended inference (see #1) is not. The studies are largely in agreement that allowing CC does not allow violent crime to rise.

3. Name calling/I feel safe without a gun so that means no one should have the option! - These are essentially the same argument, the first is just an immature way of expressing it. The person thinks it is "unnecessary" for themselves to carry a gun so this means no one else in the state should be able to have the option.

This is essentially an extreme nanny state type argument. We know that allowing CC will not cause the violent crime rate to be raised. Maybe some people subconsciously disregard this or are unaware and think along the lines of guns = danger so more guns on the street = more danger. But this has been proven to be false.

I think part of this argument is simply people wanting to impose their personal beliefs and preferences onto everyone else. But legislation should not work that way, especially when a Constitutional freedom is involved.

Also, it is arrogant and closed-minded to assume your set of experiences can represent all possible scenarios one can face, and because you personally never feel in any danger when outside that means no one has this right. For example, the man who is appealing his court case to the Supreme Court (why this thread was created) is a business owner who owns and services ATMs. He told the Star Ledger he sometimes carries large amounts of cash and he wants to carry a gun during his work for protection. I think this person should be able to have the option to protect himself and it is simply ridiculous that the government will not allow it (but would if he were a retired cop).

For these reasons, I think the anti CC folks are on the wrong side of history and this will be proven in the near to intermediate future.

borisp wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Because I like to show hypocrisy, that's why. It amuses me.

Since the two have noting to do with each other, I'm not seeing any hypocrisy regardless of how one feels on gay marriage

Argument for gay marriage: "If you don't like gay marriage then don't get gay married."

Argument for CCW: "If you don't like CCW, then don't get a CCW permit."

I have nothing against gay marriages. In fact, I have nothing against marriages at all.

What I am against is government regulating marriages, recording marriages, and treating people differently based on their married status. And if you thought of marriage as a right, - you would have been against it too. Just like you are against government regulating press, or recording abortions, or treating people differently on the basis of their religion.

Problem is, - while you pose as the defenders of rights, you do not think of marriage as a right. You are not against government regulating marriages. You are not against government recording marriages. You are not against government deciding who can and cannot marry, - as a matter of principle. You treat marriage as a privilege not right.

Who's a hypocrite now, eh?

borisp wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Because I like to show hypocrisy, that's why. It amuses me.

Since the two have noting to do with each other, I'm not seeing any hypocrisy regardless of how one feels on gay marriage

Argument for gay marriage: "If you don't like gay marriage then don't get gay married."

Argument for CCW: "If you don't like CCW, then don't get a CCW permit."

I have nothing against gay marriages. In fact, I have nothing against marriages at all.

What I am against is government regulating marriages, recording marriages, and treating people differently based on their married status. And if you thought of marriage as a right, - you would have been against it too. Just like you are against government regulating press, or recording abortions, or treating people differently on the basis of their religion.

Problem is, - while you pose as the defenders of rights, you do not think of marriage as a right. You are not against government regulating marriages. You are not against government recording marriages. You are not against government deciding who can and cannot marry, - as a matter of principle. You treat marriage as a privilege not right.

Who's a hypocrite now, eh?

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Because I like to show hypocrisy, that's why. It amuses me.

Since the two have noting to do with each other, I'm not seeing any hypocrisy regardless of how one feels on gay marriage

Argument for gay marriage: "If you don't like gay marriage then don't get gay married."

Argument for CCW: "If you don't like CCW, then don't get a CCW permit."

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Because I like to show hypocrisy, that's why. It amuses me.

Since the two have noting to do with each other, I'm not seeing any hypocrisy regardless of how one feels on gay marriage.

Argument for gay marriage: "If you don't like gay marriage then don't get gay married."

Argument for CCW: "If you don't like CCW, then don't get a CCW permit."

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Because I like to show hypocrisy, that's why. It amuses me.

Since the two have noting to do with each other, I'm not seeing any hypocrisy regardless of how one feels on gay marriage.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
It's interesting to me that people who use the argument of being on the wrong side of history re:gay marriage, and use the argument of 'don't want gay marriage? don't marry someone gay' seem to feel exactly 180 degrees when it comes to concealed carry using the same points.

The two issues have nothing to do with each other. And "wrong side of history" is not an argument by itself. It's used after you make your real points. And it isn't really mentioned with CCW anyway, I just did because it seemed appropriate.

Of course they don't have anything to do with each other, did I say otherwise?

Why bring it up then?

Monroe wrote:
Because I like to show hypocrisy, that's why. It amuses me.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
It's interesting to me that people who use the argument of being on the wrong side of history re:gay marriage, and use the argument of 'don't want gay marriage? don't marry someone gay' seem to feel exactly 180 degrees when it comes to concealed carry using the same points.

The two issues have nothing to do with each other. And "wrong side of history" is not an argument by itself. It's used after you make your real points. And it isn't really mentioned with CCW anyway, I just did because it seemed appropriate.

Of course they don't have anything to do with each other, did I say otherwise?

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
It's interesting to me that people who use the argument of being on the wrong side of history re:gay marriage, and use the argument of 'don't want gay marriage? don't marry someone gay' seem to feel exactly 180 degrees when it comes to concealed carry using the same points.

The two issues have nothing to do with each other. And "wrong side of history" is not an argument by itself. It's used after you make your real points. And it isn't really mentioned with CCW anyway, I just did because it seemed appropriate.

Monroe wrote:
It's interesting to me that people who use the argument of being on the wrong side of history re:gay marriage, and use the argument of 'don't want gay marriage? don't marry someone gay' seem to feel exactly 180 degrees when it comes to concealed carry using the same points.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
...

Heller states that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. Government cannot prevent non-felons of sound mind from possessing arms.

What was argued successfully in the 7th and 9th District Courts is that this right does not stop at the doorway of a person's home or business. Your constitutional rights do not become null and void when you leave your house.

Illinois was mandated by the court to become a shall issue as the State had to provide a reason for you NOT to carry. This is where the concept of 'reasonable limitations' come in. The State can limit the right (i.e. felons cannot carry). However, those limits cannot provide an undo burden. A burden that essentially becomes a ban. California is now facing the same with its 'May Issue' law. CA is appealing to the Supreme court.

...

The US Constitution generally protects individuals rights and freedoms, so long as they act responsibly and don't impinge on other people rights and freedoms. Other countries legislate on the basis that most people are idiots and need proscriptive laws to protect themselves and others from the consequences of that idiocy.

Hard to see how the anti-CC lobby have a case under both the letter and spirit of the US Constitution. Where is the real evidence that CC impinges on anyone else's rights or freedoms? "Ban that scary-looking dog" type arguments don't work for me.

MDM wrote:
...

Heller states that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. Government cannot prevent non-felons of sound mind from possessing arms.

What was argued successfully in the 7th and 9th District Courts is that this right does not stop at the doorway of a person's home or business. Your constitutional rights do not become null and void when you leave your house.

Illinois was mandated by the court to become a shall issue as the State had to provide a reason for you NOT to carry. This is where the concept of 'reasonable limitations' come in. The State can limit the right (i.e. felons cannot carry). However, those limits cannot provide an undo burden. A burden that essentially becomes a ban. California is now facing the same with its 'May Issue' law. CA is appealing to the Supreme court.

...

wrote:
But no way in hell should anyone but law enforcement on duty be allowed to carry a weapon. What's next? The asinine stand your ground law ?

Dolomiti wrote:
I seriously doubt NJ will be forced by the courts to allow concealed carry. Courts have repeatedly upheld NJ's laws.

Dolomiti wrote:
I also am not too thrilled about other states interfering in New Jersey's laws.

Pebble wrote:
I won?t contend that there are people out there who are skilled enough and level headed enough that having a concealed carry permit is an exceptional idea. I just happen to think the majority of them are already working in law enforcement.

Pebble wrote:
Those are three stories that take place recently in which people fired their guns while carrying them in public. Although you liked to include stories about people with guns in their own home, I chose stories that pertained to this specific topic.

Pebble wrote: Quote:

borisp wrote:Quote:

Pebble wrote:
You don?t see how Vermont?s size doesn?t come into play? You don?t think that density plays a factor?

Not until I see a study that shows that density does play a factor. If density were that madness-inducing, we'd seen some other effects in NYC, - like people fighting with tire irons in traffic, or trying to smash their cars into others or whatnot.

Here is a study on density of population and crime.

Pebble wrote:
For one, you had to be rather close to the target. You couldn?t just fire off a gun from 30 yards away and hit a target. You needed to be within the blades distance.

Pebble wrote:
For two, were you the only person with a weapon the likelihood that you would be able to murder 5 people in a room is unlikely. Only a gun makes this type vast death possible.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
How do violent crime stats compare overall in large cities that allow CC to those that don't?

From what I've seen, you have to compare the crime rate in a place before and after allowing CC. Otherwise it is comparing apples to oranges.

I believe the studies are all over the map. This is a good, unbiased (I think) brief article on the topic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/f ... 54-580638ede391_blog.html

The gist is: "Certainly, it appears such laws have not increased the crime rate, as opponents had feared, but it is equally a stretch to say such laws are a slam-dunk reason for why crimes have decreased."